Yeah, the only accurate way to compare the US is to take some third world countries ...
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
Sn1p3r187
Carolinian Shaolin Monk
I think their arguments tend to always "Them liberals!" Honestly can they ever come up with a better argument instead of always bringing left and right wing politics into the fray? Or blaming liberals for everything? Because it seems popular in the U.S. to blame liberals for everything. "It's damn hot outside today! Those damn liberals. Oh my smart phone is too damn slow! Those damn liberals. Net Neutrality is dead! Those damn liberals." Honestly I can't take the left too seriously these days as I think they're delusional. But on some days. Right wingers just blow them out of the water for how nonsensical they can be.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Note I didn't say "No matter how bad knife crime gets in London I doubt it's homicide rates will ever be as high as New York" I said "No matter how bad knife crime gets in the UK i doubt it will ever be as high as the US"
Statistically, London is seeing a boom in murders lately, to the extent it's been the highest it ever has been. Obviously you can therefore compare it to one american city and have it be the higher results. HOWEVER nationally speaking gun control has done a good job at keeping homicides low.
Nationally, our homicide levels are and always have been incredibly low, whereas the US seems to for some reason be on similar levels to Somalia.
Most people have a wrong idea about liberals anyway.
TheGM
The voice of reason
Son, you tried to move the goal posts. I just demolished the whole stadium.
Your racsim sickens me.
True, even some third world countries have health care and regonize gun controll.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Apparently objecting to you putting words in my mouth, when I explicitly said what I meant in the original post is backpedaling.
Son, you tried to move the goal posts. I just demolished the whole stadium.
Had you taken the time to read my original post, I set exactly the same goalposts as I did in the later post. Did not shift a thing.
But I know reading the post you are responding to is too much to ask for someone so certain their opponent is fallacious that they set their title to "The Voice of Reason"
TheGM
The voice of reason
"Crime in the UK will never reach US levels"
It has gotten worse.
"B-b-b-but London doesn't count!"
It's the only part that counts. Think people give one iota about Northsouthton or Sherwood Forest? But seeing as this dumpster fire of a topic has just become nothing but people hurling insults, I'm going to be what I have always been, the better man and just walk away.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
So the trick is to completely ignore the national level because... why?
New York isn't even the US' capital so I'm not sure what's the exact metric they're sharing... If it's both countries' cities with the must crime deaths wouldn't it be better to compare with say St. Louis which had 59 deaths on 2017... every 100k people?
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
No it hasn't.
The two cities you handpicked because they suited your agenda happened to show that pattern. Nationally speaking our homicide rates are still far, far lower.
Just because New York happens to have a lower homicide rate than London doesn't change the fact that our homicide on a national level is fairly standard, and yours is on the level of Somalia.
I didn't say london didn't count. Congrats on proving you can't go a single post without strawmanning whoever you are responding too. How about actually reading what other people saying, rather than responding to whatever argument is most convenient for you to respond to?
I said that on a national scale, our homicide levels are far, far lower and will never reach the same level as the US.
Yes, I accept that one particular city is going through a rough patch. That shit happens. If you are only looking at one particualar city however, you can draw any conclusions you like. If I were to only look at Detroit, I could reach the conclusion that the US was a hellhole.
The fair way to judge homicide rates each other is how they differ on a national scale.
Still, nationally we have extremely low homicide levels, and that is likely, in part, due to our gun control.
Last edited:
SilverStarApple/Epsilon7
Still Mildly Glowing
The worse SJWs act, the worse our opinion of SJWs become. That's just how image works. You google "Right-winger gets owned" or some shit and you'll find some fringe crazies ranting about unaffiliated apolitical things like the "chemtrails" myth. You google "Left-winger gets owned" and you'll see SJWs on the news, on talk shows, on web shows, and SJWs marching in the streets and getting interviewed, making an ass of themselves by being this leftist.
As for the "u say u post facts but i dont see any so dere" argument, why would you say that? Why would you deny reality? Good men with legal guns can save you from bad men with guns. I can show you some sources, but you'll say "Those aren't real sources" because they aren't your sources. They aren't Buzzfeed or CNN.
>You can kill far more people with a gun than you can with a knife due to their range and lethalness.
Oh, so NOW range and lethality matters? I thought liberals hated those concepts, hence why they keep trying to reduce the range and lethality of guns regular citizens can carry in the streets. Also, fun trivia, you're still ignorant. Knives are banned in the UK, and knife crime (especially against unarmed knifeless people) is on the rise because surprise surprise, criminals use weapons to break the law. If they're going to break the laws on murders and muggings, why would they care about rules against taking your kitchen knives outside of the house? Why do you believe your leftist politicians when they say shit like "When the criminal realizes nobody around him is armed, he'll put the gun down and turn himself in"?
Remember that time a muslim armed with a knife in London forced the unarmed cops to run away in fear, leaving their citizens to try and fight the muslim off with chairs? Gee, if only we had those big strong well-armed American cops you only love when it's convenient over here, chaperoning our thoughtpolicing coward cops.
Leftism is fallacious. In fact, I think it's time to drop the niceties and say it's retarded. It's been this way for decades. It's convinced it's right, and it's convinced it's the smartest group in the universe. Therefore, it thinks it doesn't have to think critically about what it says or believes, or how effective its policies actually are. It doesn't think it needs to think about why non-criminals would want guns, or why criminals would want guns. It's convinced guns are these scary radioactive magical death weapons that can clean out a room of innocents in seconds. And do you know what? They only function like that in Liberalized gun-free zones.
SilverStarApple/Epsilon7
Still Mildly Glowing
No, really. Leftism is fallacious.
It's founded on the fallacious belief that leftist ideas are inherently better, because they're leftist. And they're better because they're thought by leftist people, who are smarter and cooler and have better-smelling farts, because they're leftist. Meanwhile, Centrist and Conservative ideas are smelly old dumb old-fashioned things for big dumb cousin-fucking farty-pants bible-thumpers from flyover country.
This "Identity Politics" nonsense is integral to modern leftism, where you become cooler and "More Enlightened" the further left you go, and the voices of the center and right are to be ignored and insulted. After all, cool leftist kids went to cool leftist schools to learn leftist sayings like "Gender is a social construct" and "Morality is subjective" and "The Gender Wage Pay Gap Exists!", while uncool conservative kids were homeschooled and they learned about lame stuff like Jesus. That's how they see it, and this drives them to compete with each other to see who can go further left. Who cares if centrists and right-wingers laugh when you say things like "There are fifty genders, but actually, there are infinite genders!" with a smile on your face? They wouldn't understand, they're too stupid. And they must be stupid, because why else wouldn't they love and accept the postmodern beliefs you love?
Hence why you see leftists acting so irrationally on twitter, on tumblr, on reddit, on any other place where leftists think only leftists are watching. Hence why leftists think so differently from non-propagandized people. Hence why they're so willing to write off facts like the objective biological differences between men and women and the high rape rates in migrant-infested areas as "propaganda", and so willing to dismiss the idea that their fake news channels could be lying to them.
For them, shit like this is not proof of their mental ineptitude, but a hilarious zinger:
You still havn't said anything that really describes it.
Lots of nonsense that you're throwing around, If I would be you I would start with the history and then work my way up to the terms, like Leftism, Centrism, Liberalism, Consevatism, Right Wing and so on and then go from there and see how much it fitts to the people you're talking about. Leftism as a movement and ideology has it's roots in the 18th century with the industrial revolution.
Just for the record, I see my self as a leftist and I reject those retards you named and I know this is true for many lefitsts out there.
Lots of nonsense that you're throwing around, If I would be you I would start with the history and then work my way up to the terms, like Leftism, Centrism, Liberalism, Consevatism, Right Wing and so on and then go from there and see how much it fitts to the people you're talking about. Leftism as a movement and ideology has it's roots in the 18th century with the industrial revolution.
Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation
Political Left & Right
The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General. Those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime
Centrism or the center is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy; while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society either strongly to the left or the right. Centre left and centre right politics both involve a general association with centrism combined while leaning somewhat to their respective sides of the spectrum. It is something like balancing between the ideals of the left and right.
In Indian context, I believe BJP is a party of Center right, while Congress is a party of the Center left.
Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.They typically involve concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.
In Indian context, the Communist parties, CPI, CPI(M) etc., are examples of left wing politics.
Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences[10] and/or from competition in market economies.
In India, Shiv sena could be called an example of Right-wing politics. Some may argue that they are more authoritarian in their approach.
Authoritarianism is another form of government. This form of government has some political systems. They normally contain 4 qualities:
Radicalism denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways. Historically, radicalism has referred exclusively to the "radical left", under the single category of far-left politics, rarely incorporating far-right politics though these may have revolutionary elements; the prominent exception is in the United States where some consider radicalism to include both political extremes of the radical left and the "radical right".
In Indian context, the naxalites are radicals. In the US, Timothy McVeigh was an American home grown terrorist of the right wing radical.
Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society. While Progressivism is generally good, they look down on tribal or traditional practices, often refusing to consider them as 'backward'.
In reality, many people will traverse from one form of political philosophy to another, but will mostly identify themselves with most issues to one of the political philosophy. So a person can have conservative idea on one issue and liberal idea on another. So there are people with socially liberal attitude but be economically conservative. But parties will identify themselves strongly with one of the political philosophies.
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation
Political Left & Right
The political terms Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution (1789–1799), referring to the seating arrangement in the Estates General. Those who sat on the left generally opposed the monarchy and supported the revolution, including the creation of a republic, while those on the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime
Centrism or the center is a political outlook or specific position that involves acceptance or support of a balance of a degree of social equality and a degree of social hierarchy; while opposing political changes which would result in a significant shift of society either strongly to the left or the right. Centre left and centre right politics both involve a general association with centrism combined while leaning somewhat to their respective sides of the spectrum. It is something like balancing between the ideals of the left and right.
In Indian context, I believe BJP is a party of Center right, while Congress is a party of the Center left.
Left-wing politics are political positions or activities that accept or support social equality, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.They typically involve concern for those in society who are perceived as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished.
In Indian context, the Communist parties, CPI, CPI(M) etc., are examples of left wing politics.
Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social stratification or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences[10] and/or from competition in market economies.
In India, Shiv sena could be called an example of Right-wing politics. Some may argue that they are more authoritarian in their approach.
Authoritarianism is another form of government. This form of government has some political systems. They normally contain 4 qualities:
- They are limited, devoid of political pluralism,
- The exercise an executive power which is shifting or vague
- They get legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency.
- There would be neither intensive nor extensive political mobilization and they control/ manage the masses through repressive tactics against opponents and a prohibition of anti-regime activity
Radicalism denotes political principles focused on altering social structures through revolutionary means and changing value systems in fundamental ways. Historically, radicalism has referred exclusively to the "radical left", under the single category of far-left politics, rarely incorporating far-right politics though these may have revolutionary elements; the prominent exception is in the United States where some consider radicalism to include both political extremes of the radical left and the "radical right".
In Indian context, the naxalites are radicals. In the US, Timothy McVeigh was an American home grown terrorist of the right wing radical.
Progressivism is a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society. While Progressivism is generally good, they look down on tribal or traditional practices, often refusing to consider them as 'backward'.
In reality, many people will traverse from one form of political philosophy to another, but will mostly identify themselves with most issues to one of the political philosophy. So a person can have conservative idea on one issue and liberal idea on another. So there are people with socially liberal attitude but be economically conservative. But parties will identify themselves strongly with one of the political philosophies.
Just for the record, I see my self as a leftist and I reject those retards you named and I know this is true for many lefitsts out there.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
So let me get it right. It's not that they (as for the left, all of it) are wrong. It's that they're fallacious, futile, hipocritical, smelly, ugly and other many pejorative adjectives. Well, that clears things up. Thank you. Can't be a discussion about endemic problems in society before the "but muh SJW's" are used to refute the cuntservative sterotype (or the reverse), with 0 sense of self awareness.
Careful guys, don't you dare making fun at it. It hurts my freedom of speech. Wait, is that how it's supposed to work?For them, shit like this is not proof of their mental ineptitude, but a hilarious zinger:
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
TBH, I genuinely don't know how to respond to someone who thinks that the amount of pwnage compilations about ideologies is a good way to reach sociopolitical conclusions.
"I could post some sources, but you'd say they aren't real sources"
Here's an idea: If you are going to constantly go on about how the facts agree with you, post facts.
"Knives are banned in the UK"
I'm sorry, but that is literally false: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives, it's perfectly legal to own knives if you have legitimate reason to do so. You just aren't allowed to openly carry knives, or own lock knives, non-folding knives, or knives longer than 3 inches.
Stop spreading misinformation to fit your agenda.
>A series of bills adding regulations to the type of knife you can buy are passed in the 90s
>20 years later London's knife crime rapidly increases.
Obviously a direct correlation.
That's a strawman.
But while we're at it, did you know that several studies suggest that carrying a gun increases your chance of being shot?
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association
The reasons for this are that people who carry are more likely to get in to confrontational situations, rather than try and de-escalate them.
Those big, strong, well-armed American cops who shot and killed 412 people this year alone: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/?utm_term=.ab6f12fb93cc
Whereas the death toll the police in the UK have seem to only range in the dozens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom
Also before you say "Well they are just stopping murderers", I'd like to once again point out the difference in homicide rates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate , it seems that the UK police are far more effective at stopping homicides, yet still able to get away with barely killing anyone.
It seems that Britain not only has a much lower homicide rate than the US, but also simultaneously has a much lower rate of people killed by police officers. I wonder why that is. I wonder what factors are making it more difficult for civilians and police officers alike to kill people
Could it be that political leftism has been around for hundreds of years, and encompasses a massive range of philosophies and ideologies?
Nah, it's just based on fallacious nonsense.
People who are far left will obviously think far left policies are more enlightened, because otherwise they wouldn't advocate those positions. That's literally how politics/philosophy works, people argue for their positions because they believe they are the better ones
That's not fallacious at all. Conservatives believe conservative positions are more enlightened, centrists believe centrists are more enlightened, leftists believe leftist positions are more enlightened, and thus they argue for those positions
Yes it is.
The only reason people find this statement troubling is because they assume "Gender" and "Sex" are the same thing.
Sex refers to whether someone is biologically male and female.
Gender refers to the roles someone performs in society in relation to it.
Western culture traditionally assumes that these two things were interlinked, but many other cultures have had different gender systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_systems#Non-European_gender_systems
This one is much harder to prove, since you can't cite facts to support morality being either way.
However let me put it this way: What objective part of the world tells us what is right and wrong?, Can you go out and measure the moral worth of something with scientific equipment?, Can you do tests to show what we should value?
The only way you can reach moral judgements is by referring to the moral systems individuals follow. You can't simply look at objective facts about the physical world to prove morality, since morality is, by it's nature, not part of the physical world.
If you say morality is objective, then please show to me what part of the material world we can measure to test moral conclusions.
It literally does exist.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ual-pay-day-us-wage-gap-gender-race-ethnicity
It's indisputable that the gender wage gap exists. You literally only have to look at basic census data to verify this.
We can debate what causes the gender wage gap all day, but the fact of the matter is that there is a gender wage gap.
Yes, that's a very good point.
Who cares if they do laugh?
If someone wishes to express their gender identity in a way that makes them happier, they shouldn't be dissuaded if right-wingers and centrists are laughing at them. Only that person knows the fine details of their gender identity, so I don't see why a few people who don't know them responding in such a way should be a cause of dissuasion.
Oh wait, nvm, you were being disingenuous.
Yeah, leftists are the ones frequently acting irrationally online.
Seriously, look at /pol for literally more than a minute, before claiming it's us lefties who act irrationally online.
Could you please cite a source for this claim?
If this is a definite fact, then I'm sure you'll be able to find one easily.
Last edited:
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
D
Deleted member 98605
Guest
So let me get this straight.
The left is wrong because it dares to believe that the thing it champions - a political worldview for their dream culture and society - is correct?
What sort of thought-train is this. Of course a political side believes its in the correct! What, does the right champion a world-view that is built around doubting its own worldview and vision? Of course not. Nor does Centrism, or any -ism. Of course its supporters believe to a huge extent that they're in the correct, otherwise, why would they support it? Even out of some antisocial view of pursuing a reward, they would more align with a side who shares their views and the correctness of their cause than not.
The diatribe above acts like there is some supreme world-view and vision that the liberals/leftists dare to move away from. And does that rambler not believe in the correctness of their own world-view and vision thus thereof? Or are they just some sophistic?
Arguing against a side because they have the gall to have true believers is just unrealistic and untenable. I can just as well accuse the right or those centrists of being [whatever long and obtuse string of derogatory remarks here] for daring to hold onto a core set of beliefs that they support and fight for!
And note that this doesn't mean each side is above change or self-criticism or reflection: the left has famously moved (or in a more benign view, expanded) from labor rights and anti-monarchism (old left) to social issues (new left), the right in America has gone from being anti-federalist to being a reaction against the new left and championing some form of religious-inclusive government or lawset. The left in Europe has shifted (for the better, IMO), from old-left marxism to new left social democracy and social liberalism outright, the right has shifted from monarchism and anti-republicanism (and a spout of militarism and authoritarianism) to being people's or christian democratic parties.
And yes, all those shifts left a lot of screaming, hot air, broken hearts, and maybe even broken bones in the process, but they did happen. Sides are malleable, but they always, always will believe the majority of their causes and espouses are in the correct.
The left is wrong because it dares to believe that the thing it champions - a political worldview for their dream culture and society - is correct?
What sort of thought-train is this. Of course a political side believes its in the correct! What, does the right champion a world-view that is built around doubting its own worldview and vision? Of course not. Nor does Centrism, or any -ism. Of course its supporters believe to a huge extent that they're in the correct, otherwise, why would they support it? Even out of some antisocial view of pursuing a reward, they would more align with a side who shares their views and the correctness of their cause than not.
The diatribe above acts like there is some supreme world-view and vision that the liberals/leftists dare to move away from. And does that rambler not believe in the correctness of their own world-view and vision thus thereof? Or are they just some sophistic?
Arguing against a side because they have the gall to have true believers is just unrealistic and untenable. I can just as well accuse the right or those centrists of being [whatever long and obtuse string of derogatory remarks here] for daring to hold onto a core set of beliefs that they support and fight for!
And note that this doesn't mean each side is above change or self-criticism or reflection: the left has famously moved (or in a more benign view, expanded) from labor rights and anti-monarchism (old left) to social issues (new left), the right in America has gone from being anti-federalist to being a reaction against the new left and championing some form of religious-inclusive government or lawset. The left in Europe has shifted (for the better, IMO), from old-left marxism to new left social democracy and social liberalism outright, the right has shifted from monarchism and anti-republicanism (and a spout of militarism and authoritarianism) to being people's or christian democratic parties.
And yes, all those shifts left a lot of screaming, hot air, broken hearts, and maybe even broken bones in the process, but they did happen. Sides are malleable, but they always, always will believe the majority of their causes and espouses are in the correct.
Last edited by a moderator:
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Ahh the revolving circles of this thread keep going. @MutantScalper posting about another school shooting like this proves his point. People talking about guns been banned and then saying they are not trying to ban guns (my AR-15 disagrees with you). @Crni Vuk you last post had a piece in there that I would like to bring up. The statements in your spoiler about the left say they believe in civil rights, from my understanding Self defense is considered a civil right is it not? Would not gun ownership be tied in with self defense that is a civil right (self defense is listed as a right within the Magna Carta, and pretty much all ex-british colonies respect that part), I mean you pretty much need a gun to defend yourself against someone else with a gun, and with the high crime rates that are brought on by the social and economic factors that lead to higher crime. High amount of gun ownership does not bring on more crime, but yes there is more access to firearms for said crimes, necessitating more guns for self-defense. Maybe trying to fix social and economic factors would have a far better benefit, and bring down all crime, instead of only allowing criminals to have guns in a country that the cat is already out of the bag and you will never get it back in.
The only way that the gun control laws most people talk about would ever happen in the US is through a civil war, and I have a hard time seeing the side that wants to ban and control guns actually coming out on top of this.
I mean I could go start posting stats and studies again that almost nobody reads defending my position, but I know they will not be read so I refrain and will continue to go about with my center-down libertarian views.
The only way that the gun control laws most people talk about would ever happen in the US is through a civil war, and I have a hard time seeing the side that wants to ban and control guns actually coming out on top of this.
I mean I could go start posting stats and studies again that almost nobody reads defending my position, but I know they will not be read so I refrain and will continue to go about with my center-down libertarian views.
I am a leftist and I believe in your right to own firearms.